Özet:

The principle of the division of judicial and administrative authorities arising during the 1789 Revolution in France gave rise to the formation of two different judiciaries in time and the establishment of a Court of Jurisdictional Disputes temporarily in 1848 and permanently as of 1872 for the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction between them. There has not been any significant modification in the rules regulating the Court despite the social, political and legal developments occurring at the time. The Court was particularly reconsidered amid the efforts of modernization of judiciary, which commenced in 2013 and serious modifications were made in the foundation, operation and adjudication procedures of the Court. The fundamental centreline of these modifications is the empowerment of the judicial independence and making the Court closer, more effective, faster and more accessible to the citizens. Subsequent to the reform, the Minister of Justice was excluded from the Court panel in the new Court in order to strengthen the judicial independence and the Court’s establishment on the basis of equal representation of members of the Supreme Court and Council of State totally consisting of the judges from profession was adopted. This egalitarian structure was maintained under any circumstances. The adjudication procedure was entirely reviewed through the consideration of the principles of contradictory adjudication and publicity of adjudication and the target of finalization of adjudication in a reasonable time. Further more, conventional duties of the Court were preserved and the new regulations regarding these duties were concerned with increasing the quality of the related rules: affirmative conflict of jurisdiction, nonaffirmative conflict of jurisdiction, procedures of conflict prevention, conflict of judgment. Nevertheless, the Court was granted with the new authority of dealing with the complaints concerning the right to trial in a mazlığı. Bununla beraber Mahkemeye görev sorununa bağlı ortaya çıkan makul sürede yargılanma hakkı şikâyetlerine bakabilme imkanı yeni bir yetki olarak verilmiştir. Neticede, 16 Şubat 2015 tarihli ve 2015-177 sayılı Kanun ve 27 Şubat 2015 tarihli ve 2015-233 sayılı KHK ile yapılan düzenlemeler, Mahkemenin hem kuvvetler ayrılığı ilkesi hem de yargılama usulünün etkililiği açısından günümüz demokratik değerleriyle uyumunu sağlamada son derece başarılı olmuştur.Anahtar Kelimeler: Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi, Yargının bağımsızlığı, 2015 yargı reformu, Uyuşmazlığı önleyici usuller, Makul sürede yargılanma hakkı ABSTRACTThe principle of the division of judicial and administrative authorities arising during the 1789 Revolution in France gave rise to the formation of two different judiciaries in time and the establishment of a Court of Jurisdictional Disputes temporarily in 1848 and permanently as of 1872 for the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction between them. There has not been any significant modification in the rules regulating the Court despite the social, political and legal developments occurring at the time. The Court was particularly reconsidered amid the efforts of modernization of judiciary, which commenced in 2013 and serious modifications were made in the foundation, operation and adjudication procedures of the Court. The fundamental centreline of these modifications is the empowerment of the judicial independence and making the Court closer, more effective, faster and more accessible to the citizens. Subsequent to the reform, the Minister of Justice was excluded from the Court panel in the new Court in order to strengthen the judicial independence and the Court’s establishment on the basis of equal representation of members of the Supreme Court and Council of State totally consisting of the judges from profession was adopted. This egalitarian structure was maintained under any circumstances. The adjudication procedure was entirely reviewed through the consideration of the principles of contradictory adjudication and publicity of adjudication and the target of finalization of adjudication in a reasonable time. Further more, conventional duties of the Court were preserved and the new regulations regarding these duties were concerned with increasing the quality of the related rules: affirmative conflict of jurisdiction, nonaffirmative conflict of jurisdiction, procedures of conflict prevention, conflict of judgment. Nevertheless, the Court was granted with the new authority of dealing with the complaints concerning the right to trial in a

Anahtar Kelimeler: