Citation Number
6
Views
66
Downloands
19
Audio Listening
1
Alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemi (ADR) olan arabuluculuk tarafların üçüncü bir kişinin yardımıyla uyuşmazlıklarını çözümlemeye çalıştıkları bir süreç anlamına gelmektedir. Bu itibarla zorunlu arabuluculuk kavramı arabuluculukla bağdaşmaz görünmektedir; zira tarafların prosedüre katılımlarının gönüllü olması zorunludur. Ancak sürece başlamak ile süreçte kalmak arasında fark olduğu ileri sürülmüştür. Buna göre tarafları arabuluculuğa zorlamak onları sulh olmaya zorlamak anlamına gelmemektedir. Zorunlu arabuluculuk mahkemede dava açmak için gerekli bir şart olarak yani dava şartı arabuluculuk olarak gerçekleşebilir. İkinci görünüm şekli, mahkemenin yönlendirmesiyle gerçekleşen zorunlu arabuluculuktur. Burada hâkime tarafların rızasına bakmadan onları arabuluculuğa gönderme yetkisi verilmiştir. Üçüncü olarak zorunlu-benzeri olarak ifade edilebilecek bir yöntemle arabuluculuğa zorlama sağlanabilir; zira bu yöntemde mahkeme öncesinde arabuluculuğa gitmeyen taraf yargılama giderlerini ödemeye mahkûm edilir. Bu makalede Avrupa İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlükler Sözleşmesi m. 6 ve 13’de anlamını bulan yargısal koruma prensibini bünyesinde barındıran adalete erişim hakkı çerçevesinde zorunlu arabuluculuk irdelenmektedir.
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Method (ADR) means a process in which the parties are trying to resolve their disputes with the help of a third party. The concept of compulsory mediation appears to be incompatible with mediation, as the parties must be voluntary. However, there is a difference between starting and staying in the process. Forcing the parties to mediation does not mean forcing them to be blurred. Compulsory mediation can occur as a condition necessary to appeal to the court, i.e. the condition of the case can occur as mediation. The second form of appearance is the compulsory mediation that occurs with the direction of the court. In this case, the judge has the authority to send them to the mediation without the consent of the parties. Thirdly, forced mediation can be provided by a method which can be expressed as compulsory-like; for in this method the party which does not go to mediation before the court is sentenced to pay the trial costs. This article provides for compulsory mediation within the framework of the right to access justice, which contains the principle of judicial protection, which is under the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms m. 6 and 13.
Mediation as a method of ADR (alternative dispute resolutions) is a process whereby parties attempt to solve their disputes with the assistant of a third person. Therefore, it seems strange to call something “mandatory mediation” because it requires for parties’ voluntary participation during the process. However, it is argued that there is a distinction between voluntariness into and within the process. Thus, that coercing parties to attempt mediation is not necessarily tantamount to enforcing settlement. Mandatory mediation may appear as a condition for the admissibility of an action before courts. The second type of mandatory mediation appears as court-referred mediation that gives judges power to refer parties’ mediation regardless of their consent. The third is described as quasi-compulsory because it is indirectly compelled through adverse cost orders if not undertaken prior to commercing proceeding. This paper reviews mandatory mediation in terms of access to justice which is constituted by the principle of judicial protection enshrined in Art 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Field : Hukuk
Journal Type : Uluslararası
Article Detail 
Citation Owners
Similar Articles
Download PDF
Journal Information
Listen Paper
Print This Page
Share
Mendeley
