Türk Hukukunda idarenin takdir yetkisi ve denetimi
Küçük Resim Yok
Tarih
2018
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İstanbul Beykent Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
İdare Hukuku kapsamında pek çok alanda kullanılan takdir yetkisi, kanunların özel olarak düzenleme yapmadığı böylelikle idareye hareket serbestisi bırakılması ve idarenin bu alan çerçevesinde, somut olayın gereklerini göz önünde tutarak hareket edebilmesini ifade eder. İdareye takdir yetkisi verilmesinin gerekliliği doktrinde kabul görmüştür; ancak takdir yetkisinin sınırlarının ne olacağı hususu buna bağlı olarak söz konusu sınırların nerede başlayıp nerede bittiği hakkında bir uzlaşı sağlanamamıştır. Hukuk devleti ilkesi gereği, idarenin yapacağı tüm eylem ve işlemler yargı denetimine tabidir. Ancak idarenin takdir yetkisinin bulunduğu durumlarda yargısal denetimin farklı özellikleri söz konusu olmaktadır. İdarenin takdir yetkisinin varlığı halinde yargısal denetim sadece hukukilik denetimi ile sınırlıdır. İdarenin sahip olduğu takdir yetkisi, yerindelik denetimi dışında yer alır. Teorik olarak yerindelik denetimi yasağı olmasına rağmen, uygulamada zaman zaman bu kuralın ihlal edilmesinden dolayı 1961 ve 1982 Anayasaları'nda yargısal denetim ile ilgili çeşitli düzenlemeler getirilmiştir. Çalışmada, idare hukukunun içtihatlara dayanan bir hukuk dalı olması nedeniyle yerindelik alanının sınırları konusunda, son sözü yargı organlarının söylediği görüşüne ulaşılmıştır. İlk bölümde genel olarak takdir yetkisi üzerinde durulmuş, idarenin takdir denetiminin kavramsal çerçevesi çizilmiş, tanımı hususunda açıklamalara yer verilmiştir. Bununla birlikte idarenin bir konuda takdir yetkisi olup olmadığının nasıl anlaşılacağı takdir yetkisinin tam tersi olan bağlı yetki üzerinde durularak açıklanmış, Türk Hukukunda takdir yetkisinin nasıl düzenlendiği ve Danıştay'ın genel olarak takdir yetkisine nasıl yaklaştığı incelenmiştir. Takdir yetkisinin unsurlarının incelendiği ikinci bölümde ise, söz konusu unsurlar detaylı olarak açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışmanın üçüncü ve son bölümü olan idarenin takdir yetkisinin denetlenmesi bölümünde ise, denetim konusundaki anayasal ve yasal düzenlemeler ele alındıktan sonra, doktrindeki görüşlere yer verilmiştir. Denetimde uygulanan yöntemler ve tarihi seyir içinde Danıştay tarafından geliştirilen ilkeler ve içtihatlar üzerinde durularak, konu açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır.
The discretionary powers that are used in many areas within the context of Administrative Law state that the law does not make any special arrangements so that the governor is allowed to leave the action and that the mind can act in this area, taking into account the requirements of the concrete event. The authority has been admitted to the necessity of granting discretionary powers; but depending on what the boundaries of the discretionary authority are, there is no consensus as to where the boundaries begin and end. All the acts and actions that the administration will take under the rule of law state principle are subject to judicial review. However, where there are discretionary powers of judgment, different aspects of judicial review are concerned. Judicial supervision in the presence of the discretionary authority is limited to justice control. Appreciation of the value of the possession is outside the control of appropriateness. Despite the fact that theoretically forfeiture control is prohibited, in 1961 and 1982 Constitution, various regulations related to judicial supervision were introduced because of violation of this rule from time to time in practice. In the study, since the administrative law is based on jurisprudence, the final word of the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction has been reached on the limits of the territoriality. In the first part, generally the appreciation authority is emphasized, the conceptual framework of the appraisal of the appraisal is drawn, and its definition is explained. However, it has been explored with an emphasis on bounded authority, which is the opposite of discretionary authority to understand how the matter is to be admissible in a matter, how the discretionary authority in Turkish Law is regulated and how the Supreme Administrative Court approached the general power of appreciation. In the second chapter, which examines the elements of appreciation authority, the mentioned elements have been tried to be explained in detail. The third and last part of the study, the supervision section of the appraisal authority, included comments on the doctrine after the constitutional and legal regulations on the issue of supervision were addressed. The methods applied in the auditing and the principles developed by the Council of State in the course of history and case law have been emphasized and the issue has been tried to be explained.
The discretionary powers that are used in many areas within the context of Administrative Law state that the law does not make any special arrangements so that the governor is allowed to leave the action and that the mind can act in this area, taking into account the requirements of the concrete event. The authority has been admitted to the necessity of granting discretionary powers; but depending on what the boundaries of the discretionary authority are, there is no consensus as to where the boundaries begin and end. All the acts and actions that the administration will take under the rule of law state principle are subject to judicial review. However, where there are discretionary powers of judgment, different aspects of judicial review are concerned. Judicial supervision in the presence of the discretionary authority is limited to justice control. Appreciation of the value of the possession is outside the control of appropriateness. Despite the fact that theoretically forfeiture control is prohibited, in 1961 and 1982 Constitution, various regulations related to judicial supervision were introduced because of violation of this rule from time to time in practice. In the study, since the administrative law is based on jurisprudence, the final word of the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction has been reached on the limits of the territoriality. In the first part, generally the appreciation authority is emphasized, the conceptual framework of the appraisal of the appraisal is drawn, and its definition is explained. However, it has been explored with an emphasis on bounded authority, which is the opposite of discretionary authority to understand how the matter is to be admissible in a matter, how the discretionary authority in Turkish Law is regulated and how the Supreme Administrative Court approached the general power of appreciation. In the second chapter, which examines the elements of appreciation authority, the mentioned elements have been tried to be explained in detail. The third and last part of the study, the supervision section of the appraisal authority, included comments on the doctrine after the constitutional and legal regulations on the issue of supervision were addressed. The methods applied in the auditing and the principles developed by the Council of State in the course of history and case law have been emphasized and the issue has been tried to be explained.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Hukuk, Law
