Hukuk devleti yaklaşımıyla uygulamada kanuni idare ilkesi: Danıştay kararlarının incelenmesi
[ X ]
Tarih
2024
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Sinop Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Çalışmada hukuk devleti ve kanuni idare ilkesi bağlamında Türkiye'de idari işlemlerin hukuka uygunluğunun seçilmiş Danıştay kararları altında değerlendirilmesi yapılmıştır. Hukuk devleti en basit tanımıyla kanun (geniş anlamda norm veya mevzuat) koyanlarında kanuna bağlı olmasını ifade eder. Hiçbir organ veya kişi devletin koymuş olduğu hukukun dışında hareket etme yetkisine sahip değildir. Bu nedenle de hukuk devletinde "hukuk" vatandaşların güvencesidir. Kanuni idare ilkesi ise hukuk devletinin şartlarından birisini oluşturur. Bu ilkeye göre idare kanunların koymuş olduğu hareket alanı içerisinde durmalıdır. Bu anlamda idarenin eylem ve işlemlerinin kanunlara aykırı olmaması yetmez ve ayrıca bunların kanuna da dayanması (kanuna dayanma ilkesi) gerekir. Normatif olarak ortaya konulan bu ilkelere idarenin her zaman uyması mümkün olamamaktadır. Çünkü hukuk dediğimiz düzenlemelerden her kişi aynı şeyi anlamamaktadır. Hatta mahkemeler (hakimler) bile aynı hukuki olay/işlem ile ilgili farklı görüşe sahip olabilmekte ve normatif kuralları yorumlayabilmektedirler. Bu çalışmada da idarenin ve Danıştay'ın kanuni idare ilkesine olan yaklaşımları değerlendirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu minvalde Danıştay kararları taranmış kanuni idare ilkesi ile ilgili seçilmiş davalar analize konu edilmiştir. Dolayısıyla çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemleri arasında yer alan doküman ve içerik analizi yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Bu yöntemlerle, ana temalar tespit edilmiş ve bu temalar odağında kategoriler oluşturulmuştur. Çalışma kapsamında, Danıştay'ın 2011-2022 yılları arasında vermiş olduğu kararlar incelenmiş, kanuni idare ilkesinin geçerli olduğu 19 karar tespit edilmiştir. Kararların incelenmesi sonucunda, idare ve Danıştay arasındaki görüş farklılıklarının daha fazla olduğu ve dolayısıyla Danıştay kararlarının mezkür davalar uyuşmazlıklar açısından doğru olarak kabul edildi idarenin kanuni idare ilkesinin tam olarak kavrayamadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
This study evaluates the lawfulness of administrative procedures in Türkiye based on selected judgements of the Council of State within the context of the state of law and the principle of legal administration. By its most basic definition, the state of law implies that those who establish rules (norms or legislation in a broad sense) are subject to the law. Neither the body nor person has the authority to act against the law established by the state. Therefore, the "law" is the guarantee of citizens in the state of law. The principle of legal administration constitutes one of the conditions of the state of law. According to this principle, the administration must stand within the sphere of action set by the law. In this sense, it is not enough that the administrative actions and procedures do not violate the law; they must also rely on the law (the principle of Secundum Legem). It is not always possible for the administration to abide by these normative principles. This is because everyone does not understand the same thing from the regulations that we call law. Even the courts (judges) may have different opinions on the same legal event or procedure and interpret the normative rules. In this study, the researcher tries to evaluate the administration and Council of State's approaches to the principle of legal administration. The judgements of the Council of State were reviewed, and selected cases related to the principle of legal administration were subject to analysis. Therefore, document and content analysis methods, both of which are qualitative research methods, were used in the study. These methods were used to identify the main themes and create categories based on these themes. In the study, the judgements rendered by the Council of State between 2011 and 2022 were analysed and 19 judgements in which the principle of legal administration prevailed were identified. As a result of the analysis of the judgments, it was concluded that there are more disagreements between the administration and the Council of State, and therefore, when the judgments of the Council of State are assumed to be correct for the said cases and disputes, the administration has not fully comprehended the principle of legal administration.
This study evaluates the lawfulness of administrative procedures in Türkiye based on selected judgements of the Council of State within the context of the state of law and the principle of legal administration. By its most basic definition, the state of law implies that those who establish rules (norms or legislation in a broad sense) are subject to the law. Neither the body nor person has the authority to act against the law established by the state. Therefore, the "law" is the guarantee of citizens in the state of law. The principle of legal administration constitutes one of the conditions of the state of law. According to this principle, the administration must stand within the sphere of action set by the law. In this sense, it is not enough that the administrative actions and procedures do not violate the law; they must also rely on the law (the principle of Secundum Legem). It is not always possible for the administration to abide by these normative principles. This is because everyone does not understand the same thing from the regulations that we call law. Even the courts (judges) may have different opinions on the same legal event or procedure and interpret the normative rules. In this study, the researcher tries to evaluate the administration and Council of State's approaches to the principle of legal administration. The judgements of the Council of State were reviewed, and selected cases related to the principle of legal administration were subject to analysis. Therefore, document and content analysis methods, both of which are qualitative research methods, were used in the study. These methods were used to identify the main themes and create categories based on these themes. In the study, the judgements rendered by the Council of State between 2011 and 2022 were analysed and 19 judgements in which the principle of legal administration prevailed were identified. As a result of the analysis of the judgments, it was concluded that there are more disagreements between the administration and the Council of State, and therefore, when the judgments of the Council of State are assumed to be correct for the said cases and disputes, the administration has not fully comprehended the principle of legal administration.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Hukuk, Law, Kamu Yönetimi
