İdarenin Sorumluluğunda Karine Kavramı, Uygulama Alanı ve Yargısal Denetimi
[ X ]
Tarih
2018
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
En genel ve kabul edilen tanımıyla karine, bilinen bir olay ya da olgudan bilinmeyen bir olay ya da olgunun çıkarılmasıdır. Karine, ispat kolaylığı sağlayan bir araç olarak yargılamada hâkime yardımcı bir yöntemdir. Usul hukukunungenel ilkelerinden biri olan hâkimin önüne gelen davaya bakmaktan kaçınamayacağı prensibi gereğince hâkim, davanın taraflarının argümanlarını tam olarak ortaya koyamadığı durumlarda ispatsızlığın sonuçlarını engellemek için karinelerden yararlanmaktadır. Bu durumda idari yargılama usulünde iddia sahibi iddiasını ispatla mükelleftir şeklindekitemel ispat kuralından sapma söz konusu olmakta ve adalet ve hakkaniyet gereği ispat külfeti yer değiştirmektedir.İdarenin hizmet kusuru esasına dayanan sorumluluğunda kabul edilen kusur karinesi, idari yargılamada zarar gören davacınınidarenin kusurunu ispatlaması güçlüğünden kurtarmakta, davacı için hukuki korunma sağlayarak adil yargılanma ilkesinigerçekleştirmekte ve zararın tam tazmini ilkesine hizmet etmektedir. Bu çalışmanın konusu, hizmet kusuru esasına dayananidari sorumlulukta ispat yükü sorununu aşmak için kabul edilen kusur karinesini varlık nedenleri ile birlikte izah etmek, karinekavramının idarenin sorumluluğu alanında yüklendiği işlevi hem Türk hukuku hem de mukayeseli hukuk açısından değerlendirmek ve yargı kararlarına yansımasını ortaya koymaktır. Kusursuz sorumluluk çalışmanın kapsamı dışındadır
In its broadest and most accepted definition, the presumption is the inference made concerning an unknown eventor fact, on the basis of a known event or known fact. Presumption is a method to which judges resort when judgingthe lawsuit in process as it is a tool offering easiness of evidence. In line with the principle that judges cannot avoidprocessing a lawsuit assigned to them, which is one of the generally accepted principles of procedural law, judges mayresort to presumptions in order to prevent the consequences of lacking evidence in lawsuits wherein the parties of thecase fail to prove their arguments duly. In such cases, the burden of proof may be transferred to the other party in orderto ensure justice and fairness, which in itself constitute a departure from the fundamental proof obligation bearing theassumption that the party setting forth a claim has to prove the correctness of his/her argument.The presumption of fault which is considered to be under the liability of the state administration for faults in its servicesreleases the Complainant Party claiming damage/loss in administrative lawsuits from the obligation of providing evidencefor the fault of the state administration. This presumption also serves to the application of fair trial principle and also theprinciple of full compensation of damage/loss, by providing the Complainant with legal protection. This article seeks to explainthe presumption of fault accepted to overcome the problem caused by burden of proof in respect to the liability of stateadministration for the faults in its services, along with the reasons for the existence of this presumption, evaluate the functionassumed by the presumption of fault under the liability of the state administration in terms of the Turkish law and comparativelaw and to shed light on its reflection to the judicial decisions. Absolute liability is not under the scope of the paper.
In its broadest and most accepted definition, the presumption is the inference made concerning an unknown eventor fact, on the basis of a known event or known fact. Presumption is a method to which judges resort when judgingthe lawsuit in process as it is a tool offering easiness of evidence. In line with the principle that judges cannot avoidprocessing a lawsuit assigned to them, which is one of the generally accepted principles of procedural law, judges mayresort to presumptions in order to prevent the consequences of lacking evidence in lawsuits wherein the parties of thecase fail to prove their arguments duly. In such cases, the burden of proof may be transferred to the other party in orderto ensure justice and fairness, which in itself constitute a departure from the fundamental proof obligation bearing theassumption that the party setting forth a claim has to prove the correctness of his/her argument.The presumption of fault which is considered to be under the liability of the state administration for faults in its servicesreleases the Complainant Party claiming damage/loss in administrative lawsuits from the obligation of providing evidencefor the fault of the state administration. This presumption also serves to the application of fair trial principle and also theprinciple of full compensation of damage/loss, by providing the Complainant with legal protection. This article seeks to explainthe presumption of fault accepted to overcome the problem caused by burden of proof in respect to the liability of stateadministration for the faults in its services, along with the reasons for the existence of this presumption, evaluate the functionassumed by the presumption of fault under the liability of the state administration in terms of the Turkish law and comparativelaw and to shed light on its reflection to the judicial decisions. Absolute liability is not under the scope of the paper.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Hukuk
Kaynak
Terazi Hukuk Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
13
Sayı
148
Künye
Bu yayın açık erişimli değildir.
